Skip to main content

Art vs. Artist

They say you should never meet your heroes because you’ll likely be disappointed. This is sound advice because while art is a realization of ideals, artists are human beings full of flaws and contradictions. It is also a mistake to equate the art with the artist because the artist cannot be fully responsible for the way the art is received – the audience always has its own filter of prejudice and preoccupation. It would seem the less you know about the creator of something, the better you can enjoy it on its own merits, but I don’t value ignorance and find it helpful to understand what may be informing the artist’s choices. Keeping everything in perspective is the key to balancing the equation.

I’m sure everyone has had some experience of idolizing someone, be it a movie star or singer or athlete, only to learn some unseemly detail of their private lives that forever taints the way they look at them. For myself, I have problems watching Mel Gibson in movies because of things he has said in the past. The thing is he’s not the only one who has a shitty side and I’m sure if I looked closer at any handful of celebrities whose work I admire I would find plenty to object to. People who are completely agreeable are also completely unremarkable.

Furthermore, almost any entertainment is a collaborative effort. No single person is totally responsible for the final product, unless we’re talking about the true lone creator (like a sculptor or a painter, for instance). What the audience receives is subject to all kinds of variables, from the input of the contributors to the happenstance and accidents surrounding its production. Above all, however, art is less about communication than revelation: presenting an ideal artifice upon which the audience can project its psyche and discover personal truths, which may or may not have anything to do with the artist’s intent.

A sophisticated artist can influence the direction of the audience’s thinking, certainly, but a sophisticated audience should be equally aware of the tools and tricks of the artist’s trade and spot a lie when it contradicts the truth as they understand it. Art, like a good story, has to have an internal logic in order for it to carry any sort of meaning. Otherwise, all you have is sound and fury signifying nothing. Knowing the influences that go into any art will help to decode it, but only to a point. Don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees.


It’s also important to keep in mind that art is a lie in service of the truth. The people behind it may or may not fully believe what they are saying. Like a magician, making you wonder is the point of the exercise. While it’s important to know what shaped the creation of any art, it is the art and your relation to it that matters more than the creators. Know thyself. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Retro Review - Paris, Texas (1984)

As a preteen I was obsessed with ALIEN and always took note of everyone involved, including the actors. Harry Dean Stanton’s most oft-mentioned film credits were always either ALIEN or Paris, Texas , so when he died last year I made a point of finally hunting down the latter which had been on my radar as long as my obsession with the former. I knew very little about the film, so when the opening credits said “written by Sam Shepard” I immediately became more interested. Then “directed by Wim Wenders” came up on screen and I was even more interested. I was pretty confident I was going to have a very good film experience. I was wrong only in that it exceeded my expectations. Paris, Texas is, in my opinion, beautiful, authentic, heart-felt, compassionate, moving and very mature: a great movie, in other words. The movie opens with Travis (Harry Dean Stanton) walking aimlessly through the deserts of Texas, apparently in some kind of mute daze. A local doctor finds him and a bus...

Film Review - A Quiet Place

John Krasinski directs and stars with his wife Emily Blunt in this exceptional horror movie about a family trying to survive against predatory monsters who hunt by sound. The film is a terrific example of visual storytelling as the dialogue is suppressed to a minimum by the danger it represents to the survivors. It is also one of the most effective and high-tension suspense movies I’ve ever seen, with more intelligence and emotional power than are typical of the genre. The story begins several months after some sort of invasion by ill-defined, poorly understood but immensely superior predators which have effectively wiped out the human race. Those who have managed to survive have had to adapt to a virtually silent mode of living, walking barefoot everywhere, for example, or communicating by sign language. The eldest daughter, played by Millicent Simmonds, is indeed deaf herself, and the film uses its sound design very effectively to convey point of view of characters according to...

Film Review - Tomb Raider

Alicia Vikander is the best and possibly only reason to see this movie. I’m not expecting Shakespeare from a film based on a video game, but I am expecting more action than dialogue. I liked the action sequences alright, but I don’t think there were enough of them, and the stuff between them I felt was kind of boring. Still, I did like seeing Alicia Vikander running and jumping and doing action-stuff, so the movie wasn’t a complete loss. I just wouldn’t recommend it. The film sets out to be an origin story for Lara Croft and a search for her lost father which is bound up in a lame Raiders of the Lost Ark –type race for a powerful magical maguffin. I really don’t mind the predictability of the plot, and there is an argument to be made that these kinds of movies are all about delivering what the audience expects, but I don’t want to put up with long, melodramatic scenes or boring expository speeches. I want to see Lara Croft raiding tombs. Alicia Vikander does a superb job wit...